Anti-secessionists: come at me, bros!

[mjk45]

badgenome said:

mjk45 said:

Having talked about secession being unlawful is that really the case today legally? ,  In Lincon's case didn't he threaten to imprison the  head of the supreme court for alluding to the fact that it may not be unlawful at all . , so has the constitution been amended since , or was  the head of the supreme court wrong or is it still going along on the fact that Lincon disallowed any legal challenge .

As far as I know, the federal government's position is still very much that it is illegal to secede. Far too many historians parrot the line that I mentioned earlier: that the Civil War settled the matter once and for all because the North won. Which is neither a legal nor a moral argument, since once can also say that Stalin was in his right to starve a bunch of Ukranians because he did it, and that settles that. So ultimately, I think it's more of an extralegal matter than a legal one as secession - like war - represents a breakdown of the political. A region which secedes and can enforce its independence will remain independent; a region which can't will be forced back into the union at gunpoint.

Exactly it came down to forced surrender at the point of a gun and a climate of we don't care what we do , how many rights we trample or how many die to achieve it , that's the very reason I brought it up because it only settled who had the military power at that time , so i was wondering what the case would be if it was played out in the courts today without any threats of throwing judges into jail etc and was looked at from a purely legal standpoint and yes i know what I'm asking for is a big what if .